Had dodgy advice from a nutritional therapist? We have!

Have you ever visited a nutritional therapist? In this month’s Which? magazine we investigated the profession and found some worrying practices, such as therapists advising against going to your GP.

One therapist advised our researcher, who was posing as a cancer sufferer, against having conventional treatment (a lumpectomy and radiotherapy), saying that she should try for three to six months to rid herself of the cancer through diet (by cutting out sugar).

Nutritional therapy can be big business; therapists charge up to £80 for a consultation and often prescribe expensive supplements on top. So we wanted to investigate whether it was worth the money.

How our investigation worked

We asked five undercover researchers to each visit three therapists. Each researcher was provided with a scenario.

One researcher (in her early 30s) had been trying to conceive unsuccessfully for over a year. Two (in their 50s) had been suffering from severe tiredness for the past three months. And two women (in their 40s) had recently been diagnosed with DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma in Situ), the most common type of non-invasive breast cancer.

A panel of experts (a dietitian, a GP and a Professor of Pharmacology) then assessed recordings of the visits and any other information the therapists provided to the researchers, including prescriptions for supplements.

Are nutritional therapists worth the money?

Our expert panel concluded that visiting a nutritional therapist wasn’t worth the money – and in some cases could have actually endangered the health of the researcher. Six of the fifteen consultations were rated as ‘dangerous fails’.

This could have been down to a number of reasons:

The advice given by the therapist could have potentially harmed the researcher.

Therapists were diagnosing conditions without relevant testing (even though their Code of Practice says they shouldn’t diagnose).

Researchers were advised not to visit their GPs about the problem, recommending unproven testing such as hair mineral analysis, and the case above, advising against cancer treatment.

Of the remaining visits, eight were rated as ‘fails’ and only one was graded as a ‘borderline pass’. Our experts were disappointed by the advice given by therapists and concerned at their poor knowledge of the body and how it works.

The experts were also worried by some therapists using non-evidence-based testing to diagnose symptoms. These tests included iridology (studying the patterns, colour and other characteristics of the iris), hair mineral analysis and a researcher being given several liquids to hold in his mouth before being told he had a chromium deficiency.

Are the recommendations right?

Twelve of the therapists prescribed supplements to the researchers, costing up to £70 a month. Researchers were told not to buy them from Boots or other high street chemists as they weren’t ‘pure enough’ and you were effectively ‘flushing your money down the loo’. Instead, they were asked to buy them from the retailers recommended by the therapist.

Of course, there is benefit in following healthy dietary advice, but most of what was provided by the nutritional therapists is freely available on websites such as the NHS site.

Plus, most of the therapists in our investigation recommended quite restrictive diets that excluded several foods (predominantly dairy and wheat) and taking expensive supplements.

If you do have a medical condition that you are concerned about, your first port of call should be your GP. If necessary they can then refer you to a dietitian. We have contacted the British Association of Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy (BANT) with our findings and concerns.

People who have visited nutritional therapists emailed us to say that they found the diets recommended to them difficult to maintain over a long time and eventually gave up.

Have you visited a nutritional therapist? What was your experience like – do any of these findings ring true or did you have a more positive experience?

Monthly archive

Before I read this thread I took the same view on NTs as I initially did on Homeopaths. I took the view that this was a field filled with people who genuinely wanted to help others in a complementary way and that they had the ability to regulate their activities to protect the public where neccessary.

What I have read since I find deeply disturbing.

NTs seem to suffer many of the same weaknesses which seem to make Homeopathy so deeply flawed. NTs seem to lack self awareness, don’t possess the skills to properly assess evidence, and perhaps worst of all see themselves as a true alternative to conventional healthcare rather than complementary. They also seem highly succeptible to buy into conspiracy theories propogated by the industry that relies upon them, whilst ignoring the obvious conflict of interest.

I have become more and more convinced that stronger regulation is the wrong solution here, as this would just legitimise any dangerous practitioners that the more moderate ones, for whatever reason, will not condem. Self regulation clearly isn’t going to work.

Guess the answer will be more investigations like the Which? one, until there is sufficent pressure to act.

#2. Wakefield attempting to sue Brian Deer for libel (failed)
Again true but then the final Court hearing/ruling is now in process, so we will just have to wait and see………………
Opinion…………………
“When the accused fails to respond to a charge as serious as the ones attributed to Dr. Wakefield, it implies guilt to the public at large. I think Andrew has taken the proper course. I have spoken to him in private concerning this case and feel confident he will be vindicated. It is interesting how this has all come about. The perpetrators of this medical disaster, the pharmaceutical makers of vaccines, knew that a great number of well-respected researchers were raising serious concerns over vaccines and finding possible links to autism and that the public would be convinced that there were serious problems with vaccines. By implying that the entire case for vaccine-induced neurodevelopmental problems was based on the work of one person, Andrew Wakefield, all that was necessary was that they slander that person. If they could make the public believe that the entire case of vaccine-induced autism was fraudulent by destroying the reputation of the implied sole person making the claim, they could end all criticism. It also intimidated other scientists who feared similar treatment. When Wakefield proves his case, those who conspired to destroy his reputation should not only pay heavy monetary cost, but should also face long terms in prison”…………
Dr Russell Blaylock,M.D.

#3. Threats to Andy Lewis by Society of Homeopaths, Joseph Obi and Robert Delgado (dropped before action I think)
Probably, so thanks for finding that one.

Chris I often wonder too about how in the first part of the 20th centuary the wonderful scientists identified what we now call vitamins and their function. They must have been so excited and they made mistakes too since some weren’t. Then there were the scientists and doctors who followed on their work discovering how to correct deficiencies. Little did they know that the result of their discoveries would become such a battle for health

Hello Selina,
without wishing to stoke the fires yet again, I thought it worthy of mention to you and you only, that those scientists whose work involved research into Vitamins and so on, their work has largely been ignored/neglected or even suppressed, and I include here the works of Otto Warburg, Dr Johanna Budwig, Dr Herbert M Shelton, Dr Otto Buchinger, Dr Benedict Lust, Dr J Harvey Kellogg and the list goes on and on.

Stuart,
I appreciate your views and opinions from what you said was your last comment, but (there always seems to be a “but”) I just couldn’t help myself in replying when you stated……………….

“NTs seem to lack self awareness, don’t possess the skills to properly assess evidence, and perhaps worst of all see themselves as a true alternative to conventional healthcare rather than complementary. They also seem highly susceptible to buy into conspiracy theories propagated by the industry that relies upon them, whilst ignoring the obvious conflict of interest”.

As long as you are aware that this is “opinion” rather than a substantiated piece of writing, otherwise I would have to ask you for some “robust evidence”, apart from the “expert panels” report.
I have also been festering with the thoughts on what David said about the ANH, and how this was rebutted by Adam from them.
Now if David is susceptible to (what shall I call it) exaggerating or distorting the truth about the ANH, then that really leaves him wide open to his reliability/judgement/assessment on this panels reporting.
Does it not?

Maria said……………
“Unlike, Chris, I am quite open to being persuaded if the evidence is good enough, even if it does go against what I have previously held to be true”.

I was totally unaware that you know me that well in being able to cast aspersions on my ability to weigh the evidence, including the ability to change my views, despite what I have thought to be true and factual previously.
So, thank you for pointing that out, I shall endeavor to try harder in the future.

“I have my own beliefs on healthcare, which also happens to include General Medicine, but this is also based on personal experience, and EBM/testimony/experience of thousands upon thousands of others. Nothing you, or anyone else can say would persuade me otherwise.”

Stuart, Wavechange, Maria and David and anyone else I may have inadvertently omitted.
By way of an apology.

For the most part we sit on opposite sides of the healthcare spectrum, and which of course has been made abundantly clear throughout our discussions; but each and everyone of us should have the inalienable human right to follow our own chosen path, and however much we may disagree with that path, and as long as this is by way of informed choice. However, if that choice is taken away from us, then we have allowed ourselves to become undemocratic and to sink into the abyss of fascism.
As far as healthcare is concerned, most people still follow the Allopathic route, as evidenced by the burden placed on the NHS, but it should not be the role of either side of this health divide to engage in conflict. I believe that we should be able to co-exist without fear of prejudice or bias or reprisals. As far as protecting the public is concerned, that should apply to both Mainstream as well as Alternative approaches.
Also, if I have come across as overly zealous, it is only because I am passionate about my cause, and have good reasons to adhere to that cause. If I have offended anyone then I apologise to any and all of you.

I apologise to you for ridiculing your ideas and making provocative comments.

Although I haven’t changed my views and remain keen on finding a way that NTs can support orthodox healthcare I now realise that there is too big a divide for this to be an easy job. Perhaps one thing that everyone can agree with is the importance of the food we eat in helping maintain a good state of health.

Yes Wavechange,
I believe you are right in coming back to this topic when WHICH provides an update or when either BANT or CNHC publishes any relevant information. Mind you it is interesting to note BANT’s most recent update, on which I commented previously.

If I recall correctly, BANT welcomed a proper review but did not suggest how to progress this.

What worried me most s that they felt NTs are already providing an excellent service, without any acknowledgement that this might not always be the case. I can understand that they want to be positive about their members but it seems to me that they are burying their head in the sand.

Until action is taken we are going to see more bad publicity for NTs like that posted by frozenwarnings,below. That does little good for anyone with a genuine interest in promoting health. I would be surprised if the government intervenes because their money would be better spent on improving dietary advice and NHS healthcare.

Interesting but unsurprising comments from beneath the article. For example,

“My children were full of allergies, covered in eczema and asthma and life was a cycle of inhalers, wet wraps and sleepless nights. I was over tired, over wraught, distraught and desperate. Regular docs seemed unable to help them and were offering me steroids to slather all over them, inhale and ingest. I tried homeopathy, osteopathy, chinese herbs, nutritional therapist, naturopaths, kinesiologists, the lot. Because of their severe allergies they’d already had NHS allergy testing which was limited back in the day. I employed a nutritional therapist with the machine above and it nearly killed my son. After £500 of therapy I was assured my son’s fish allergy had been cleared. Two days later I was in an ambulance with my nine month old son in anaphylactic shock because I’d touched some fish to his lip, not even fed it to him. These charlatans are dangerous! The therapist took no responsibility whatsoever and there was nowhere to report him. Greedy, evil and dangerous.”

“I saw a kinesiologist a few years ago and was told a lot of false information. I previously had an anaphylactic shock to peanuts and hazelnuts, but the kinesiologist kept telling me that ‘your body has told me it is not allergic to nuts, you are definitely fine to eat them’. When I told her that I have had a blood test that shows I’m severely allergic to them, she responded to proven tests as ‘complete nonsense’. She also insisted that I take snake venom tables and cut out broccoli, apples, wheat and milk. That was a complete waste of time and money!”

And that’s without any vested interests tweeting at people to share their anecdotes.

The levels of nutrients given by nutritionists is a tricky issue. Obviously the training for therapists of any kind needs to be good and it is often difficult to know where to find a good one. I have a Homeopath who is also a fully qualified medical Doctor too. Very reassuring. He often recommends supplements to help with various problems and the current regime he has prescribed is proving very effective.
My understanding of the RDA is that it was devised when people still suffered from Rickets and Scurvy and is the minimum amount of a nutrient to avoid illness. This is very different to the levels needed for optimum health which is what therapists are usually trying to achieve for their patients.
The miss-information on this subject is legion and it would be very useful if the facts could be established by an impartial body. Most discussion is led/influenced by vested interest and commercial bias. Not helpful to those of us who are trying to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing. As a nation we need to be taking far more responsibility for our own wellbeing in order to reduce the huge burden on the NHS so it can focus on those who are in real need of their care and expertise. Too many people have abdicated this responsibility or have no confidence to help themselves and expect the NHS to fix them when they become ill.

Hello everyone, specifically Barney, Chrisb, David and Maria – we’ve had to take down a number of comments which refer to an author as an ‘hysterical liar’. This is potentially defamatory and has no place on Which? Conversation.

These comments may go up in an edited state, but this may take us some time. I hope you can bear with us. Some of the comments are also replies to the ones taken down – we’ve taken these down as well, as they will not appear correctly until the original comments are restored. Thanks, Patrick.

It might save time if you just delete offending comments and leave it up to us to post ones that are not offensive. Don’t hesitate to get rid of any of mine. I have not been very kind to chrisb at times.

Lucky you, Liz, having a homeopath and doctor all in one. Hopefully in time more doctors will find a way to break out of their boxes of fear and discover other healing ways outside.

You are spot on about the RDA being the minimum for avoiding illness and that more is needed for optimum health. The question is: how much more?

We evolved to live an active life outdoors, naked, near the equator, free of persistent stress. We evolved to eat fresh, sun-ripened, unprocessed, locally sourced, in-season food from a clean, unpolluted environment.

We in the British Isles live a comparatively inactive life, with clothes on, away from the equator, in a damaged environment, e.g the ozone layer, an environment that is being damaged in all sorts of ways, e.g. intensive agriculture. Many pollutants are unavoidable, e.g wi-fi zones everywhere; others one can avoid, e.g. make-up with parabens in it. Persistent stress is common. Our diet does not and cannot replicate that described above. It is reasonable therefore to suppose that nutrient levels in the food available to us are lower than in the food our Stone Age cousins eat in the jungle, and that our ability to absorb nutrients from food is impaired.

I don’t know of any evidence of any description for what I have just said. However, it cannot be difficult for a research study to be designed where researchers go into the jungle, measure the nutrient status of food that Stone Age people eat and do some blood tests on these people to find out their levels of vitamins and minerals and find out what really is “normal”. Armed with this information, I suspect we would need to redefine normal ranges for vitamins and minerals for optimum health that are higher than the RDAs, optimum health being different from absence of disease.

wavechange .. I completely agree that chemical supplements are not the answer – I understand that synthetic supplements are worse than useless, at the very best, passing through the digestive system unaltered and unabsorbed …

– anecdote follows, so those who discount anecdotes, please skip over this bit … my neighbour has worked in a water company for most of his career, and tells me that not only are the filter grids littered with synthetic pills, but also that many of them still show their imprinted logos – anecdote over.

But that doesn’t exclude the possibility of those on a less-than-perfect diet (most of us in the western world) needing some form of supplementation.

Those who sell expensive supplements would have us believe that they are better but a lot of it is advertising. Advertising is not always as honest as it should be and there are plenty of people ready to swallow both the hype and the expensive pills. Caveat emptor.

You are absolutely right about our diet but there is a lot we can do by following general advice about a healthy diet – and not eating too much of it. Keep away from processed foods as much as possible – and avoid extreme views at all times.

Yes, I know I am very fortunate with my Homeopath, he has looked after me and my family for many years and with great success. Whenever orthodox medication was indicated it was recommended and taken, a vital key to his success. The most distressing thing for me is that the wealth of experience of the value of the various ‘alternative’ approaches/therapies is dismissed by most of those in the orthodox field, such a blinkered approach seems so outdated particularly in those interested in the wellbeing of the population. Surely embracing all possible ways of helping people achieve and maintain health and wellbeing is the way to go and thereby build a body of evidence about the efficacy of the various approaches. Most alternative fields have been around long enough to have gathered a substantial amount of empirical evidence so with careful use and monitoring most should be beneficial. Calls for ‘clinical trials’ are farcical as no one would be willing to fund such costly trials because there is no potential to make a profit from the remedies/substances which are natural therefore not able to be patented. Surely it is not ‘beyond the wit of man’ to find a way to bring the vast array of potentially beneficial approaches into the mainstream to help as many people as possible. I believe that one of the main benefits of these alternative therapies is the minimal risk of side effects, more than can be said of much orthodox medication!
I read once of the massive number of people in hospital due to side effects of medication, it would be interesting to know the current statistics.

Wavechange, my interest is in Quality of life, not just longevity. Living longer is not necessarily good if suffering and disease is the price. I am not surprised you are not in favour of supplements if you assume they are all chemical. Those worth having are natural substances, bioavailable and properly balanced products made in clinical environments to ensure purity. They are sometimes costly as a result but my philosophy is that I would rather consume a little of something wholesome and nutritious than a lot of rubbish.
The nutritional value of the majority of food available today is significantly diminished by modern farming methods so there is a need for supplements to replace the nutrients lost. Organic food goes a long way to help this problem but this is not available to everyone. Good nutrition should not be a privelidge but a right for everyone, regardless of income.

Liz you come over as having a lot of common sense. There is much that has not been discovered yet, so who knows if one day it will be realised that homeopathy does work. I don;t believe we can be categoric about anything. Certainly I believe it is accepted that many people do die from their medication or overdoses of it, difficult to know how many. Someone else may be able to offer a number.

Selina
You say that we can’t be “categoric about anything”. While agreeing that it’s hard to discover the truth, not least about the effects of diet, I must ask if you still regard as an open question the proposition that the earth is not flat but rather a oblate ellipsoid? Or the proposition that the earth is in orbit round the sun, rather that the other way round?

I think we all agree that the effects of diet on health are interesting and important. I hope we also agree that there is a lot to be learned about these effects. Admittedly most of the work on those topics is done by regular scientists and doctors, but there is no reason why nutritional therapists should not be among the people who spread the ideas. But, if you insist on mixing up sensible things like good dietary advice with utterly disproved things like homeopathy, the result will be that NTs will never be taken seriously.

Chris, Thank you for your comments and the links on c. silver. I have passed the links on to my daughter who uses it for herself and her tiny daughter (5 years old and weighing about 20lbs or so). My daughter will be pleased to have some guidance on what is the best available.This little one seems to be of normal intelligence and has already passed her life expectancy age. Her mother works tirelessly to make nutritious food for her. She has had to do a lot of studying and finding out herself. The dieticians though very well meaning didn’t understand her condition (even more rare than progeria) and how to advise her and little Midge (not her real name) nearly died. Everything is made from fresh food and has to be pureed as little one has no teeth. Allergy testing (within the NHS and without) has been helpful though it took a long time for her to be referred.. Midge is however very happy and chats happily though she has speech difficulty.

Wavechange,
I’m afraid you are making the same mistake as did Dr Magnus Pyke, in saying that supplements are just like any other chemicals, and where he commented that food additives and other ingested chemicals within the food supply can do no harm.
Yes they are chemicals, but they just happen to be “organic chemicals” that are “nourishing” to the body and its cells, in the same way that water is a chemical or composition of chemicals (H2O). Arsenic for example is a chemical, but a poison to the body.
The body actually needs bioavailable chemicals that nourish the body and not poison it, and this would include the natural chemicals in the food we eat, as well as those in quality Nutritional supplements, because they are………………Nutritional.

Vitamin C for example is a small molecule, similar in structure to the sugar glucose. It is composed of six carbon atoms, six oxygen atoms and eight hydrogen atoms, all linked together by chemical bonds. It is a weak acid, also known as ascorbate and l-ascorbic acid. Many food supplements use the salt forms: sodium ascorbate, calcium ascorbate or magnesium ascorbate. Ascorbic acid produced in the laboratory, is chemically identical with the ascorbic acid found in Nature.

I remember telling you that I have a chemistry degree. I also have a a PhD in biological chemistry and a fair knowledge of biochemistry, through 40 odd years of learning, research and teaching. I would be happy to give you a chemistry lesson to supplement your knowledge, but here is not the place.

I suggest that you look up the term ‘organic chemical’. Wikipedia redirects to ‘organic compound’ the preferred name. That will do fine, or you can use an elementary textbook. It is not me who is making a mistake. If you want to believe the what you find on cranks’ websites that’s fine by me.

Wavechange,
I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful to your qualifications, but the information that I have supplied about Vitamin C for was taken from the Scientific work of Dr Steve Hickey, who gained his PhD in Medical Biophysics from the University of Manchester, and gleaned from some of his own research on that Vitamin from his book: Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C. It also contains just over 575 scientific references that he used in compiling and supporting his monumental work.
Unless you know more than he does on the subject.!!
With respect, I suggest you do some research on: The Dynamic Flow Model.

Perhaps you would like to explain why, as we are made of chemicals, why we are unable to live from chemicals not found in the food chain, such as rocks containing inorganic mineral compounds, and by this I mean plants, when in their embryonic state, cannot use inorganic minerals in the soil, but instead feed on the organic compounds contained within its seed. Not until its roots and leaves are grown can a plant utilize the inorganic minerals of the soil.
The changing of inorganic matter into organic matter takes place principally in the green leaves of the plant by means of photosynthesis. Only by the presence of chlorophyll is the plant able to utilize the inorganic carbon molecule and convert it with hydrogen and oxygen into the organic combinations of starch and sugar. And, ultimately, the plant combines nitrogen and other mineral elements from the soil into more complex organic combinations. Only the chlorophyll-bearing plants have the ability to assimilate iron, calcium and other minerals from the soil, and to use the resulting combinations to construct nucleo-proteins.

Vital changes occur in all minerals as they pass into the structure of plants. These changes cannot be isolated by normal chemical laboratory processes (unless by the chelation of minerals and other nutrients) which destroy living plant tissues to analyze them.

Sorry but I have made it clear that I do not want you to teach me chemistry. I could answer your question but it is not relevant to the topic of nutritional therapists.

I do like your comment about “changing of inorganic matter into organic matter”! To suggest that you might be out of your depth might be an understatement. Any thoughts on turning base metals into gold? That was what alchemists (quack chemists) claimed to be able to do. It occurs to me that we managed to get rid of the quacks in chemistry, so we might yet get rid of iridology, homeopathy, reflexology and other branches of pseudoscience.

Yes, I read that post and was upset for that lady and her child. I can understand her being angry. We don’t know what really happened. It is a puzzle. I would expect it to be unusual to tell anyone that an allergy has gone. Usually NTs work very much in partnership with their clients so it is very much a twoway thing. That was certainly the worst coment. I think to be fair since there were a lot of very positive comments were there not to have highlighted them all?

My little grandaughter has allergies and food sensitivities. She has had to be rushed to A&E and hospital several times, once on advice she took from a dietician and I am not sure about the other times. Did she blame the dietician? No, She was angry and upset at the time and in dispair that she couldn’t get advice that would help. What does she do? She starts finding things out and working things out for herself. She bounces things off me. The Allergy testing people have been good. However she actually blames herself more for not listening to her own common sense. She and little Midge too have sussed a lot out for themselves.

Individuals can do a great deal to understand their own allergies and intolerances to foods, etc, and help from a specialist can be invaluable. Children may need a lot of help from their parents.

Maria’s story is very worrying and illustrates the need for professional and individual care.

I developed a strong allergy to moulds in foods (especially muesli and certain cheeses). My GP and consultant were very helpful and I had an injection for use in emergency. Fortunately my problem gradually disappeared over 20 years and I can now eat what I want. At the height of my problem I was able to carry out my own investigations, but anyone liable to go into anaphylactic shock needs proper medical supervision.

“I think to be fair since there were a lot of very positive comments were there not to have highlighted them all?”

It is always a good idea to check the veracity of claims before you make them, Selina. Of the 37 comments below the article, I see only one offering a positive anecdote about an NT. The majority of comments “countering comments” are the usual diversionary stuff about the problems of mainstream medicine and the rest are just indignant that yet more NTs have been exposed as quacks and are blaming the reporter.

Forgive me, but I don’t quite see the point in your anecdote about your grand-daughter. Is the moral that people who’ve received bad advice from NTs shouldn’t blame them but should start “finding things out and working things out” for themselves and “listen to their own common sense” instead?

I was just thinking if someone like Liz has found that in her case homeopathy has worked for her and her family for years, why would anyone try to “pull that rug from under her” and tell her it doesn’t work? Why would anyone be “hell bent” on destroying her findings?

“Homeopathy does not work beyond the placebo effect. Relying on it and other pseudoscience techniques instead of proper medical care can kill.”

This is a no-brainer so I’m surprised to see signs of disagreement. I’ve blogged a few example of people who’ve suffered and even died because of their misplaced faith in homeopathy but there are plenty more on the What’s the Harm website.

In fact it was the needless death of a child, Cameron Ayres, that alerted me to the fact that believing in faith-based therapies like homeopathy isn’t as harmless as I’d previously assumed and the homeopath in this case did nothing wrong – s/he reportedly “begged” the parents to get the child to a hospital. Unfortunately, if you promote faith-based therapies with a message that they can be effective for any named condition, you are not entirely blameless when some people take you seriously and think it’s real.

Later I read the story of Janeza Podgorsek, who died because he believed a homeopath’s claim that homeopathy would work to prevent him getting malaria and, when it didn’t, he believed the homeopath’s claim to be able to treat the malaria he’d caught. In 2010 we read about Penelope Dingle, who refused to have the surgery that could have saved her life because she believed a homeopath could cure her colorectal cancer. She even refused painkillers in case they ‘interfered’ with the homeopathy. I recommend the documentary Death By Homeopathy: Penelope Dingle, which can be seen on youtube and where you can hear how Penelope realised too late that she’d been the victim of a monstrous scam and how she died a slow agonising and needless death. Most recently, we learned how the parents of 4-year old Luca Monsellato tried to treat their very sick son with homeopathy and herbal tea for weeks before they realised he was dying and finally took him to hospital. It was too late.

Please don’t bother responding with anecdotes or statistics about deaths supposedly caused by faith in modern medicine. That is NOT the point. The point is simply to illustrate Wavechange’s comment with some real-life examples for those who might doubt they exist.

Wavechange, How many cases of death due to “proper medical care” have there been? How many cases of death due to homeopathy have there been? How many cases of death due to the placebo effect have there been? How many deaths due to “pseudoscoence techniques” whatever they are have there been? I was supporting Liz’s findings and not wanting to talk about homeopathy as I have no involvement with it.

Homeopathy cannot kill, but failure to provide proper medical care can kill. I have tried to be supportive in these discussions but it is time to face up to the reality and recognise the danger of pseudoscience.

Our orthodox medical treatment for cancer may remain very crude and not always effective, but no-one can doubt the value of early diagnosis. Homeopathic treatment of a cancer sufferer will achieve nothing, and may delay treatment that could save their life.

Even if you have no involvement with homeopathy, please do not support its use.

“How many cases of death due to “proper medical care” have there been? How many cases of death due to homeopathy have there been? How many cases of death due to the placebo effect have there been? How many deaths due to “pseudoscoence techniques” whatever they are have there been?”

If you want to discuss these, we shouldn’t cherry-pick just a few numbers, but look at them all. That would give a more balanced approach, don’t you agree?

This would have to include: the numbers of lives saved by conventional medicine, the number of people living longer and with a higher quality of life because of conventional medicine, the number of babies who survive birth because of conventional medicine and the number of those who are suffering less and in less pain because of conventional medicine.

Alan, it would indeed be wonderful to compare just how many people have been helped by non-orthodox medicine with those helped by conventional methods, just as it would be marvellous to know for sure just how many people are injured and killed by both approaches. Unfortunately, because there is only widespread data-gathering – in places like hospitals, universities and research institutions – for the orthodox approach, it’s virtually impossible to get reliable figures. But we can try to get an idea, although I suspect Alan will accuse me of ‘cherry picking’.

The USA keeps better records than the UK and makes more of them public, so forgive me for using US data here. I think we can agree that the medical and surgical methods used in both countries largely coincide. In 2010, the FDA itself tells us there were 471,291 reported serious adverse events, to correctly prescribed and administered medicine [http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveillance/AdverseDrugEffects/ucm070461.htm]. These included death, hospitalization, life-threatening, disability, congenital anomaly and/or ‘other serious outcome’. There were also 82,724 deaths from the same cause.

A 1998 meta-analysis put adverse drug reactions at “between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death” in the US [http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/279/15/1200.long]. Another study estimates that 44,000 to 98,000 deaths are caused by medical injuries sustained while in hospital [http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/290/14/1868.long]. Add this to the 60,000 to 90,000 deaths caused by hospital-acquired infections [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17540232], and modern medicine looks likely to be the third-leading cause of death in the United States.

As for non-orthodox approaches, I admit again that comparable figures are impossible to come by – but that’s a failing of the system as it exists, not of ‘alternative’ medicine per se. But a good indication is given by the American (them again) Association of Poison Control Centers annual report from 2010 [http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2010%20NPDS%20Annual%20Report.pdf]. This document shows that, between them, vitamin and mineral supplements, homeopathy and herbal medicine caused 6 deaths. Two of these were attributed to an “unknown herbal or homeopathic agent”, two to iron supplements and one to sodium. Knowing how homeopathy works, even the skeptics will have to agree that a death from homeopathy is highly unlikely, even impossible; but there you are.

None of this touches on aspects of quality of life, although I’ve heard far more stories of orthodox than non-orthodox medicine destroying people’s lives. And living longer under orthodox care increasingly means taking a bewildering array of drugs [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18179993], many of them to deal with the side effects of other drugs: a twilight existence. And of course, the effects of all that polypharmacy have never been studied clinically. Indeed, with so many drug combinations available, it would be impossible. But still it goes on, every day. Where’s the ‘evidence base’ for that, I wonder?

To me, it’s clear that non-orthodox treatments are enormously safer than orthodox ones. As for efficacy, for the majority of conditions beyond emergency care and surgery, I would go along with the words of Dr Valerie Malka, a previous director of trauma services at an Australian hospital: “While modern medicine is revolutionary when it comes to surgery, particularly in emergencies, for pretty much everything else, traditional, natural or alternative medicine is much more effective” [http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3840682.html].

No one in denying that taking sugar pills has any great particular adverse effects (other than feeding cancers, apparently), so in that direct sense they are safer. However, if they only have the efficacy of sugar pills, they have no benefit either and it’s specious to consider one without the other.

Not so much cherry-picking as not supplying all the details necessary for a proper evaluation.

Some comments about Daily Mail article so that Which blogger readers get a balanced view if they havent looked at the article themselves as we have too many skeptics on this blog

‘Biased journalism at its worst. As a qualified nutritional therapist, we were taught at college to identify the red flag signals for immediate referral to GPs. These signals include sudden weight loss, blood in stools, etc. I base my treatment plans on scientific research and I reject the claim made by dieticians that nutritional therapists do not use evidence based research. In life, there are good GPs and bad GPs, good builders and bad builders. I think it’s time to stop isolating nutritional therapists unfairly in this way and to recognise the excellent treatment provided by good, qualified nutritional therapists’.

‘With these symptoms being mentioned ( made up or otherwise) this reporter would have found themselves heading straight to their Doctors – Had they been booked in with me – or any BAcC registered Acupuncturist. Red flag symptoms must be recognised & acted upon & quickly. Doctors miss symptoms at times too. Tis article raises a point or two – but there are many properly trained therapists out there, and you will find that they are very responsible indeed”.

Wavechange, Did you read the my comment about my daughter’s experience? If I could choose someone in this conversation to help her find out how enable little Midge to be as well as possible, who do you think I might choose?

I did read your comment, and even looked up progeria to remind myself about this rare genetic disease. Getting the best help for rare conditions can be extremely difficult and it could be useful to make contact with others who have dependants with the condition. Progeria is so rare that it is extremely unlikely that any contributors to this Conversation will be able to help, unfortunately.

Selina,
for what you think it is worth, and in the case of Progeria, that rare genetic disease, you may find it of interest to know that Vitamin D has a profound and beneficial influence on over 200 genes and their expression/behavior……………………………….http://www.physorg.com/news201791554.html

Research is being carried, and much more needed on Vitamin D and the causes of disease, and in particular on genetic diseases.

Yes wavechange,
best to leave the chemistry lesson alone, but I just had to reply to your sweeping generalization that “supplements are chemicals”.

I did agree but merely pointed out that Manufacturers of (for example) mineral dietary supplements mostly “chelate,” or attach, the minerals to organic compounds to improve absorption in the body. Minerals are inorganic and cannot be absorbed well without the added chelated compound.
Many supplements are treated in this way, but those of the highest quality are “food-derived” as opposed to being produced synthetically.
It is through photosynthesis, that inorganic compounds absorbed by the plant are metamorphosed into organic compounds as you should be aware. This is why we don’t eat chalk or calcium carbonate to obtain our calcium, but instead eat the plants/crops that do.
This is why we don’t eat rocks or the soil directly, but the foods that contain those nutritional elements for the proper absorption and utilization of those chemical compounds we need, and what we refer to as Nutrition.
I respect your qualifications but sometimes academia is unable to see the wood for the trees when just plain old commonsense is the answer.

Wavechange, I thought I put in brackets that Midge did not have progeria. It is a genetic condition but not a premature ageing one. What I was hoping you might look at is how my daughter’s attitude came over.

I would like to reassure you Selina that no one will ‘pull the rug from under me’ I have experienced enough benefit from Homeopathic treatment in a wide variety of circumstances over the last 30 years to know what I believe. Everyone is different and turns to different approaches to problems and different treatments. We all have to find our own way when health challenges occur and keep an open but cautious mind. I recognise the desperation of a mother unable to find relief for their child suffering asthma and excema, some find relief with conventional drugs, some Chinese medicine or any of the other range of systems out there. The fact is we all have to choose which aspect of those on offer we want to try but obviously make judgements about the wisdom of each approach. I do not believe anyone should rubbish the choices others have made while trying, in good faith, to relieve suffering.
‘Wavechange’ seems intent on this and I find it sad that this is the case. Perhaps there have been reasons for it but even that gives no one the right to denegrate the decisions and choices made by others. I try to listen and learn and have found it a useful approach, often finding my way to very worthwhile new ideas. I will continue to do so.

I am not intent on anything except helping people to understand that homeopathy does not work and that using it rather than proper treatment can be dangerous under certain circumstances. There is a great deal of evidence that homeopathy does not work. You have your own view and I do not intend to discuss this further.

Whatever you say, the NHS hospitals and their dieticians should be duty-bound to protect the patients by informing them about the dangers of a certain type of glucose. I can’t understand why Coke is on the EATWELL plate.I hate the Americanization of British culture, it’s dreadful I doubt it cause they would get problems from COKE PLC. (The French have got it right, C’est la peste americaine!) Downright harmful. Do the attending doctors or dieticians talk about the below problem when visiting the wards???? I’ll bet you if you circulated this around the wards, nobody would be touching anything with this type of glucose in their foods.(Lucozade anyone??) Does cough syrup have this stuff in it?? Does anyone know? Slow poison, that’s what it is.

Environ Health. 2009 Jan 26;8:2.
Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar.
Dufault R, LeBlanc B, Schnoll R, Cornett C, Schweitzer L, Wallinga D, Hightower J, Patrick L, Lukiw WJ.
Abstract
Mercury cell chlor-alkali products are used to produce thousands of other products including food ingredients such as citric acid, sodium benzoate, and high fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup is used in food products to enhance shelf life. A pilot study was conducted to determine if high fructose corn syrup contains mercury, a toxic metal historically used as an anti-microbial. High fructose corn syrup samples were collected from three different manufacturers and analyzed for total mercury. The samples were found to contain levels of mercury ranging from below a detection limit of 0.005 to 0.570 micrograms mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup. Average daily consumption of high fructose corn syrup is about 50 grams per person in the United States. With respect to total mercury exposure, it may be necessary to account for this source of mercury in the diet of children and sensitive populations.
PMID:
19171026

I hate the amount of processed food that is on the market too, but there is no need for anyone to be obsessed about it unless they have a true food intolerance or allergy.

The Eatwell plate is simply an acknowledgement that most of us will eat some junk food and not a recommendation that we do. The less junk we eat, the better. I never buy Coke or Lucozade, but I don’t think the occasional bottle would do me any harm.

what type of glucose? High fructose corn syrup such as tested in the study. The doctors want to prescribe Lucozade. they don’t seem to have a clue of the hazards. Our poor children. What a pool of ignorance.

I wonder how much of this poison is okaed by the dieticians. HFCS in the puddings no doubt too. Poor unsuspecting and very vulnerable patients. I don’t trust dieticians?? They don’t even watch out for Vitamin D foods in the hospital. I don’t think they even care:-((

Chris, thank you for links. Midge has a condition that is very rare, her geneticist, who is great, only knows of a handful in the world. I would prefer not to give the name of the condition here as her parents do not want any publicity, though I would be happy to let you know personally. Midge has up to now been allergice/sensitive to dairy, soya. eggs ,sugar, fats, tomato family,nuts most seeds, sesame being particularly dangerous for her. For several years her mother made her milk from raw sprouted hemp and added in vitamin and mineral drops. She could tolerate to some extent some of the formulas advised, but they all had problems. She doesn’t have hemp milk now but can tolerate oatmilk a little bread made with spelt wheat, rice. She can tolerate most vegetables including sweet potatoes, fish, shell fish, meats and a little some fruits. All must be pureed very finely.She is at times a fussy eater, but her appetite now can be amazingly good. Her growth is restricted but she has grown quite a bit but is very skinny. Her sight is not great. Her eye specialists I think wishes he had not done an operation on one eye when she was a baby as it didn’t help. She can’t read yet but knows all her letters, numbers, colours, shapes etc.She can speak and form sentences and ask questions, but her words are difficult sometimes to understand. She has a little walker which she can manage quite well and she can swim. She is generally very warm remarkably so, her temperature can be quite high when not well. She recovers quite quickly from infections. The bottom third of her face has not developed properly (This may remind you of Weston Price’s findings). She has intention tremor. She is a very happy little being but quite capable of throwing a tantrum. Her organs are considered to be normal. There you have a snapshot of this little one.

Wavechange,
I am fascinated to know why you are on such a mission to denigrate Homeopathy. What experience do you base this on? Does it mean that you are open to the potential benefits of other therapies?

Here is an article published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine called “Ten-year trends in hospital admissions for adverse drug reactions in England 1999-2009”. The summary makes interesting reading.

Here is an article published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine called “Ten-year trends in hospital admissions for adverse drug reactions in England 1999-2009”. The summary makes interesting reading.http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/content/103/6/239.full

………….included 5 thumbs down/disagrees, which is essentially saying that our RCT and EBM fraternity here, have moved the goalposts to suit their own agenda. After all, this is one of their own Journals. Our scientific chameleons are at it again.

Thank you ExR&D, the reference was very interesting and leads me to hope that the recording of these incidents continues and is improved.

One of the striking things I have found with Homeopathy, which is very reassuring, is that if the remedy selected by the practitioner is not the right one, it just does not work, it does not do any harm. Sometimes, as with orthodox medication, it is difficult for the practitioner to ensure exactly the right treatment first time. There is often an element of trial and error, so I found it hugely comforting to know that no problems would occur while the correct approach was determined. I am not sure the same can be said of orthodox medication as I have found to my cost and the study mentioned above identifies.

Emma,
wavechange is essentially right concerning fructose and glucose when he said…………………

“Fructose and glucose are different sugars, Fructose is exactly the same, whether it is in HFCS or in naturally present fruit. Fructose is NOT a poison. We should simply avoid consuming a lot of sugar”.

But, what he omitted to mention Emma was the “High” in HFCS as found in many foodstuffs and popular soft drinks, because as we know, and he doesn’t seem to, is that this concentration causes “sugar spikes” within the blood, and has to be counteracted/controlled by Insulin. The pancreas can then easily become exhausted resulting in Diabetes Mellitus Type2.

We of course know that the lower concentration of fructose within fruits for example, and supplied within “complex carbohydrates” is released more gradually into the bloodstream, which in turn avoids “sugar-spikes”, and which again in turn does not overwork the Pancreas, and avoids the common disease described above.
Why do people complicate the uncomplicated?

That is 24% (one quarter) of the ingredients are glucose/fructose!!!!! and then people wonder why Diabetes is so common and is becoming far more prevalent.

Another ingredient Sodium Benzoate…………
There have been some health concerns about the combination of sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid or vitamin C. When the two are mixed, they can form the chemical benzene, which is carcinogenic.
Well surprise surprise we have Vitamin C as another ingredient in Lucozade (Ascorbic Acid).

And the scare story is about incompetent NT’s, but most are neglecting the scare stories about Dieticians who recommend soft drinks.
So NT’s get slated, but Dieticians are fine because they are part of the “status quo”.